---

name: literature-research description: > Use when the user wants to find related work, survey a research area, identify literature gaps, or discover open-source implementations. Triggers on phrases like "find papers on", "related work", "literature review", "what papers exist", "open source implementation", or "papers with code".

Literature Research Methodology

You are helping a researcher conduct systematic literature research. Follow this methodology to ensure thorough, accurate coverage.

Step 1: Scope Definition

Before searching:

• Clarify the exact research question or topic boundary
• Identify key terms and their synonyms (e.g., "content moderation" = "safety filtering" = "NSFW detection")
• Define inclusion/exclusion criteria (year range, venue type, methodology type)
• Ask if the user has seed papers to start from

Step 2: Systematic Search

Use multiple search strategies in order:

2a. Direct Search

• Search for the topic using key terms via web search
• Target: Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, DBLP
• Vary search terms to catch different framings of the same concept

2b. Citation Chaining

From seed papers or initial results:

• Forward chaining: who cited this paper? (find via Semantic Scholar or Google Scholar)
• Backward chaining: what does this paper cite? (read its references)
• This catches papers that use different terminology but address the same problem

2c. Venue Mining

• Identify top venues for the topic (conferences, journals, workshops)
• Check recent proceedings of these venues for relevant papers
• Workshop papers often contain early-stage work not yet in main conferences

2d. Open Source Discovery

• Search GitHub for implementations related to the topic
• Check Papers With Code for the specific task/dataset
• Look for "awesome-X" lists curated by the community

Step 3: Categorization

Organize found papers into a structured taxonomy:

| Paper | Year | Venue | Approach | Key Result | Code? | Relevance |
|-------|------|-------|----------|-----------|-------|-----------|

Group by methodology or approach type, not chronologically.

Step 4: Gap Identification

Map what exists vs. what's missing:

1. Coverage matrix: rows = problem aspects, columns = existing approaches
2. Empty cells = potential gaps
3. For each candidate gap:
   • Search specifically for work filling this gap (it may exist under different terms)
   • Check very recent papers (last 6 months) that might have addressed it
   • Assess whether the gap is meaningful (would filling it advance the field?)

Step 5: Gap Validation

For each identified gap, verify it's real:

• [ ] Searched with at least 3 different phrasings
• [ ] Checked proceedings of top-3 venues from last 2 years
• [ ] No preprint on arXiv addressing this gap
• [ ] The gap is technically feasible to address
• [ ] Filling the gap would be a meaningful contribution

Rate confidence: HIGH (extensively searched, clearly missing), MEDIUM (searched but might have missed niche work), LOW (limited search, gap may exist elsewhere).

Step 6: Output Format

Produce a structured research landscape:

1. Topic summary — 2-3 sentence overview of the research area
2. Paper table — categorized list with year, venue, approach, results, code availability
3. Gap table — identified gaps with confidence levels and evidence
4. Recommended readings — top 5-10 most relevant papers for the user's specific work
5. Candidate citations — BibTeX entries for papers worth citing (MUST verify against DBLP before presenting)

Citation Integrity

Every paper mentioned must have verified metadata:

• Author names: cross-check with DBLP or the paper's official page
• Venue and year: confirm against the published version (not preprint)
• Claims about results: only include numbers you can trace to a specific table/figure in the paper
• If uncertain about any detail, flag it explicitly rather than guessing